Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32972404›Full record

Trial reportBMC medical education2020

Comparison of different feedback modalities for the training of procedural skills in Oral and maxillofacial surgery: a blinded, randomized and controlled study.

Lukas B Seifert, Carlos Herrera-Vizcaino, Philipp Herguth, Jasmina Sterz, Robert Sader

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC medical education, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Lukas B SeifertDepartment of Oral, Cranio-Maxillofacial, and Facial Plastic Surgery, Goethe University Frankfurt, Theodor-Stern-Kai 7, 60590, Frankfurt, Germany. lukasbenedikt.seifert@kgu.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0069-9961
Carlos Herrera-VizcainoDepartment of Oral, Cranio-Maxillofacial, and Facial Plastic Surgery, Goethe University Frankfurt, Theodor-Stern-Kai 7, 60590, Frankfurt, Germany.
Philipp HerguthDepartment of Oral, Cranio-Maxillofacial, and Facial Plastic Surgery, Goethe University Frankfurt, Theodor-Stern-Kai 7, 60590, Frankfurt, Germany.
Jasmina SterzDepartment of Trauma, Reconstructive and Hand Surgery, Goethe University Frankfurt, Theodor-Stern-Kai 7, 60590, Frankfurt, Germany.
Robert SaderDepartment of Oral, Cranio-Maxillofacial, and Facial Plastic Surgery, Goethe University Frankfurt, Theodor-Stern-Kai 7, 60590, Frankfurt, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe feedback given to students plays an important role in their efficiency related to learning practical skills. In the present study, diverse feedback modalities have been investigated. Our hypothesis is that individualized and unsupervised video feedback can produce a similar learning experience as performing practical skills in an oral and maxillofacial surgery setting with conventional direct expert feedback (control group).

methodsThis prospective, randomized, controlled, and blinded study compared direct expert feedback (DEF), individualized video feedback (IVF) and unsupervised video feedback (UVF). The participants were fourth-year dental students from University Goethe in Frankfurt. The students were assigned to one of the three feedback methods (n = 20 per group) using simple randomization. All participants watched an instruction video for an interdental ('Ernst') ligature and periphery venous catheterization. Next, the students were video recorded performing the tasks by themselves (pre-test). Following this, every student received feedback using one of the above-mentioned feedback modalities. The participants then performed the same task again while being video recorded (post-test) to measure the acquired competence. Six weeks later, the students participated in an objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) to evaluate their long-term knowledge retention. All examiners were blinded regarding the students' instructional approach and their affiliation in terms of the learning group.

resultsFor the interdental ligature, we found significant improvements in performance in each feedback modality group between the pre-test and post-test (p < 0.001). UVF had the strongest effect on performance time. The comparison between each group in the post-test showed no significant differences between the three groups.

conclusionThis study showed that IVF and UVF can be considered an alternative or adjunct to conventional methods (i.e. DEF) when learning procedural skills in oral and maxillofacial surgery. However, DEF showed to be the most effective method of feedback and therefore preferable in teaching.

Indexed as

Education, Medical, UndergraduateSurgery, OralClinical CompetenceFeedbackHumansProspective StudiesSuture TechniquesVideo RecordingDental studentsFeedbackMaxillofacial surgeryProcedural skillsUndergraduate education

Identifiers

PMID32972404
PMCPMC7513537

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.